Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s office sent out a press release this morning announcing that the Club For Growth was honoring her with an award for defending “economic freedom.” The quotation from the club’s president Chris Chocola, however, was quite puzzling.

â€œWith his/her score of 91%, Congresswoman Bachmann is a champion of the pro-growth agenda,â€ said Chocola.

(emphasis mine)

A good reminder to double-check your work when using the copy-paste function.

This entry was posted
on Thursday, July 30th, 2009 at 11:11 am and is filed under Main, Michele Bachmann.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

The DJI Average closed back below 9200 again but the news was it reached around 9225 today. Looks like the baseline has ratcheted up another notch into the 9200 + range.

Q. What are the investors seeing and liking ? Is it, as D2 believes, due to the immanent defeat of Obama Care? I heard the chief lobbyist for PHARMA today on NPR saying that his lobby has made and received some significant bargaining concessions pursuant to getting the bill passed.

And who doesnt want to see the Govt passing healthcare reform.
Look how good the CARS program lasted.
And that is like romper room compared to budgeting, healthcare, wars, etc:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government plans to suspend its popular “cash for clunkers” program amid concerns it could quickly use up the $1 billion in rebates for new car purchases, congressional officials said Thursday.

The Transportation Department called lawmakers’ offices to alert them to the decision to suspend the program at midnight Thursday. The program offers owners of old cars and trucks $3,500 or $4,500 toward a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle.

The congressional officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

A White House official said later that officials were assessing the situation facing the popular program but auto dealers and consumers should have confidence that transactions under the program that already have taken place would be honored.

Jim says:
I LOVE THAT LAST SENTENCE–”SHOULD HAVE CONFIDENCE…..”
hahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahaha

And when we add an average of 5 BILLION to the national debt everyday, who doesnt love to see the bigwigs working on the important! issues—

WASHINGTON (AP) â€” President Barack Obama is hailing his meeting with professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and policeman James Crowley as a “friendly, thoughtful conversation.”

In a statement after the three men and Vice President Joe Biden chatted over beers, Obama said he learned that Gates and Crowley had already spent some time talking with each other. He called that “a testament to them.”

“Obama said he learned that Gates and Crowley had already spent some time talking with each other.”

Hurray for the Red Stripe and Blue.

Crowley doesn’t seem any more comfortable with political celebrity status than was Joe the Plumber. But a personal invitation to the WH exceeds the average 15 minutes of fame the average American enjoys. Some are born to greatness, some achieve it, and some are just doing their job.

Dora – The NYT poll emphasizes the failures of Obama. The data indicates folks are unhappy with his performance and the performance of the dem led legislature.

I am interested to hear who is proposing the Medicaid type public option? What percent of paychecks go to Medicaid now? How much more would folks pay each month to expand Medicaid to the uninsured? Wouldn’t that hit the middle class the hardest?

If folks want to increase it to pay for a public option, a lib should put it into a bill. I haven’t heard a politician promote it yet.

Yeah, a gub’mint demand-increasing program to combat the Great Recession is wildly successful beyond anyone’e expectation and the braindead 6DJ sees it as (another) sign of gub’mint incompetence. But the porkulus is a failure, donchaknow? At least in the evidence-free mind of the Pollwatcher.

The gub’mint running through the fuel-efficient car buying program funding in weeks and terminating the program at the end of the funding is a clear “failure” of “budgeting”. You betcha!

In 6DJ’s Bizzaro Universe, I suppose. What a crazed hall of mirrors your “brain” is. 6DJ: “Fore! Can I have another mulligan on that? I got Bobby Clampett’s autograph!”

Gosh, a major boatload of FREE MONEY worked. Who’d a thunk it? Not Parthy….
Your ilk seems incapable of criticing “your guys,” in the midst of this great economic debacle. People actually WERE predicting this–dealers interviewed locally had said it might be gone in a day or two. Are you as delusional as some of the other leftie BQ’ers?
So dealers are happy? Have you seen the news stories? Tons of paperwork, website freezes, now worry if all WHO ALL READY BOUGHT will get $$$$?
It is unclear whether all the buyers will now get the money…..Are the BUYERS happy, depends on the end result?
The auto companies still were running CARS ads during Conan last night. Nice use of ad dollars there……

You have no criticism for this program:
ie “rebate guaranteed thru date X, etc etc” Why not COME OUT and just say, we will honor any who bought thru 7/31?
I mean ,what is a few hundred mil when you spending trillions………..

You are sadly unbelievable, and again we have proof we GET the govt we deserve, when people dont demand a shred of competence from their officials.

And with all our spending and deficits ballooning the debt,
ANOTHER DOWN GDP NUMBER TODAY.

But wait, I am sure Parth will reappear to tell us why the GDP data is good news, you know
In leftie world–
down IS up
left IS right
debt IS good
reports DONT regulate
Unemployment IS great (start a new career after all)

Righties better buckle up now, the spin zone will be running full speed on the BQ today………

And yes, the fawning continues over this program, parth!
Alix on 9 just had an auto bigwig from MN-a Lambert fellow, ripping how this program was run.
And imagine a govt option on healthcare, with the big run on its freebies, “we are suspending your healthcare after a week…”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Leftie = delusional or on some good drugs!

Jul 31, 2009 6:03 am US/Eastern Government Suspends ‘Clunkers’ Program
At Current Rate, Giving Out $3,500 Or $4,500 Per Vehicle Would Burn Through $1 Billion Allocated In No Time

NYC Car Dealers: How Could Obama Administration Mess This Up?

In a shocker, the government announced it would suspend the program at midnight because demand was too great.

It may have been the best $1 billion the government has spent so far this year.

Business was humming at Crestmont Toyota/Volkswagen Thursday night as salespeople rushed back to work on news that the government’s “Cash for Clunkers” program was being suspended.

It’s the deal where you get up to $4,500 for your older low mileage beast if you buy a new car with more efficient fuel consumption.

On Thursday night we learned the program was only good until midnight, all because of a backlog of red tape. So the salespeople were trying to get their deals through the government’s Web site.

Well, I did say quite a while back I was gonna give the new administration some time before I jumped…er..came to any conclusions. You appear to have taken a differnet approach to the political situation.

“Of course, maybe things are great out thereâ€¦â€¦..
HAHAHAHAHAHAâ€¦â€¦â€¦”

Attitude is everything, Jim. You see what you want to see, know what I mean?

That’s your problem Pollwatcher you don’t look beyond the numbers that support your focus on failure. There’s much more in the polls than you will ever admit. Yep his approval ratings are down. Clearly there is a big partisan divide. Wow, what a shock, eh?

From the current Pew poll:

“Although the public has a more negative than positive general reaction to the health care proposals being debated on Capitol Hill, there is broad support for many of the core elements of the legislation currently before Congress. Nearly two-in-three (65%) favor requiring that all Americans have health insurance, with the government aiding those who cannot afford it. Nearly as many (61%) favor requiring employers who do not provide insurance to pay into a government health care fund. And there is broad support (79%) for prohibiting insurance companies from denying insurance to people with pre-existing conditions. …

Despite the drop in Obamaâ€™s overall public approval rating, and, more specifically, approval for his handling of the economy, more than six-in-ten (63%) say they are optimistic that his policies will improve economic conditions in the country. Thatâ€™s about the same as the 65% that said they were optimistic about his economic policies in June and the 66% that said the same in April. …

A majority of the public (54%) also says they are optimistic that Obamaâ€™s policies will reduce the federal budget deficit over the long term. That share is unchanged from June (55%) and April (54%). …

About half (49%) of the public continues to say that Obamaâ€™s policies so far have not made economic conditions better or worse. …

on the critical issue of health care, 55% say spending more to make health care accessible and affordable should be a higher priority, while 40% prioritize deficit reduction. These findings are largely unchanged from a 59% to 35% margin on this question in April. …

And on the broad issue of spending more to help the economy recover, just more than half (53%) prioritize stimulus spending, while 38% put a higher priority on cutting the deficit. ..

On virtually every [health care] proposal tested, Democrats are substantially more supportive of change than Republicans. The widest gap is over the proposal to mandate insurance with government assistance to those who canâ€™t afford it â€“ something 87% of Democrats favor compared with 41% of Republicans. Independents fall between, with 60% supporting this idea.

Developing a government health care option is also divisive, with 66% of Democrats, 50% of independents and only 36% of Republicans favoring the idea. There are similarly wide divisions over the proposal to tax higher income households as a means to pay for changes to the health care system and requiring employers to pay into a government health fund if they donâ€™t provide insurance for their employees.”

6DJ does his usual mindless thrashing, none of which undermines that the cash for clunkers program was a hugely successful stimulus program—indeed, his cut n’ paste automen state it clearly was.

Just more “incompetent gub’mint redtape” complaints, on a program in effect for a few weeks. Pretty reasonable complaint from the Right, as usual. It would be better if the gub’mint allowed waste and fraud in administering it, right? That’s how Bushco would have handled it, I’m sure.

Looks like the Congress will allocate some more money to the program—would you support that, 6DJ? Of course not, it might help matters, and you don’t want that at any price.

As for GDP, it’s down another 1% after 2 QTRs of 6% declines—is that worse or better, Deadender Jim? You’ll say anything, no matter how stupid. Indeed, the stupider the better!

6DJ: “Fore! I found ten balls in the water hazard! One was Fuzzy Zoeller’s from 8 years ago!”

And who was critical of the Cash for Clunkers program and tried to kill it? Why Republicans of course. And now they’re critical because there wasn’t enough money in it.

Always wanting it both ways. Just like Jindahl and the stimulus funds. Criticize it out of one side of his mouth while smiling broadly and handing out big checks signed by him for a photo op about how much that money will help La.

And how stupid is that car salesman? How is spending the money not administering the program? Perhaps it’s that car dealer who doesn’t know what he’s doing.

My sister took advantage of the program. Turned in an 1994 10 MPG SUV for a 2010 50 MPG Prius. The AZ dealership had no complaints about the program.

A right is something I have, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is NOT something I have a right to have someone else do for me.

I have a right to hold property I have purchased or made. I do not have a right to have someone give me property.

I have a right to take the necessary steps to preserve or restore my health. I do not have a right to demand health services from others for free.

What we are in fact discussing in the health care debate is whether as a society we want to provide free or subsidized health care to those who cannot or will not pay for it.

And we are discussing the best means of providing that care, which is another matter entirely.

Politicians, aware of the current broken system of health care delivery and payment, promise a utopia where all will share rosy health, and someone else will pay for it — whether it be the insurance companies, the medical providers, or the “wealthy.”

If history teaches, none of this will happen.

What will happen, whether “something” is done or not, is:
>access to health care will decrease, as will costs to everyone;
>disgruntled health care providers will leave the profession;
>people will continue to live life as they have and if that lifestyle is unhealthy for them will pay the price in sickness and death.

But at least the Social Security Administration will benefit from not paying benefits to those who have passed.

And Big Brother, if national health care is passed, will control who lives or dies as they never have before.

My wish would be, since politicians are never ones to miss a chance to buy a few votes, that they would simply set up a tax supported major medicat plan, where the government would reimburse insurers for any costs for a single subscriber in excess of $20,000.00 per year.

The insurers would do the screening and discounting, and send a consolidated monthly bill to the feds, who would not need a humongous bureaucracy to issue a thousand checks a month.

Standardized basic policies could be mandated, and all citizens required to buy one.

Insurers could compete for this business by price competition.

Employers could afford to provide insurance at the new lower rates. And hospitals and medical professionals would soon adapt their billing practices to fit the new standardized plans.

And the politicians could go home proclaiming that they had “solved” the problems of health care without destroying a whole segment of the economy.

“And Big Brother, if national health care is passed, will control who lives or dies as they never have before.”

Ah yes, the old “Big Brother” bogeyman. As Dora pointed out a while ago, the insurance companies already control health care outcomes based on profitability(theirs, not yours). “Big Brother” would control it based on optimal health outcomes(yours, not theirs). If we’re going to have a middleman gatekeeper in health care,
I prefer the later scenario to the former.

“Why do you think â€˜big brotherâ€™ wonâ€™t control health care the same way they control the intake of your tax dollars?

Does the IRS have a reputation for compassion towards those that have a problem paying their taxes, due to financial difficulties beyond their control?”

I feel that this is an apples to oranges comparison, vomit. The IRS is indeed notoriously hardnosed in the performance of it’s duties. The VA, on the other hand, has been praised for the the way it has upgraded it’s healthcare delivery system. Their only commonality is that they are governmental institutions. So what?

I think we as a society
need to take responsibility for providing health care for those that absolutely cannot afford it.

With that said, it was only after losing my health from a combination of diabetes and heart disease that I realized health care is primariliy my responsibility.

It takes a considerable effort on my part to do the things I need to do to optimize my personal health situation.

For example,

I needed to take the responsibility to learn about proper nutrition, which goes way beyond looking for a “low fat” label.
I needed to take the responsibility to learn about the meds my docs were prescribing.
I needed to take the responsibility to
learn about what exercise is best suited for my needs.

It’s been expensive. I take ten different prescription meds every day. I eat a lot of expensive fresh fruits and vegetables. I pay for a special cardiac risk mangement program, out of my own pocket.

I needed to take the responsibility to consider what’s more important, maintaining my health or getting the latest and greatest electronic toy. It has required me to clip coupons, and study the weekly supermarket sales flyers to mitigate my costs. And so on.

Their only commonality is that they are governmental institutions. So what?

I haven’t had much luck in finding compassionate government beaurocrats.
Last week, I posted the experiences of people I know who have applied for SSI disability, which was a years long nightmare for them and their families.

At least with my insurance companies, I have been able, when needed, to get past the claims department and present my issues higher up the corporate ladder. I don’t think I’d have that option with my government.

“At least with my insurance companies, I have been able, when needed, to get past the claims department and present my issues higher up the corporate ladder. I donâ€™t think Iâ€™d have that option with my government.”

Why not? They have layers of management in government, just like they do in corporate. There are “escalation” policies in government, just as there are in corporate. I disagree with the notion that a governmental bureaucrat is, by definition, worse than a corporate bureaucrat. A bureaucrat is a bureaucrat-and, in a pinch, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. And, it seems to me, a congressman’s ears will pick up a little more when you call about a governmental problem, as opposed to a corporate one.

“Somehow I think a profit motive is ultimately incompatible with providing good Health Care services.”

This is the crux of the biscuit, in my opinion. The level of service provided will depend on the motive for providing that service. This does not mean that financial accountability has no place in health care delivery. It just means that, in order to deliver a high level of health care, profit cannot be the top priority.

And, it seems to me, a congressmanâ€™s ears will pick up a little more when you call about a governmental problem, as opposed to a corporate one.

If you want fast results in the corporate world, hunt down the e-mail address of a senior exec (a quick check of their website usually reveals the names of the relevent execs, and the standard e-mail format of the company). Send him an e-mail providing a detailed outline of all the problems you are contacting him about, and include a list of consumer advocate website where you plan to post the all the negative experiences you’ve had, dealing with the company.

It works. You’ll have a resolution within days.

I doubt it will work with the long term congressman who has no worries about winning his next election.

Monty says:
“Ah yes, the old â€œBig Brotherâ€ bogeyman. If weâ€™re going to have a middleman gatekeeper in health care,
I prefer the later scenario to the former.”

I remember the promises that were made when Medicare first entered the scene.

And I remember what happened when costs a few years later were double and triple what the politicians had predicted when it passed. (A soon to be repeated scenario.)

Politicians were unwilling to tell the public that it wasn’t working or to vote to cut back the program. So they told the bureaucrats to find ways to cut back on payments.

Every dirty trick in the book was used to cut back what the law said Medicare would pay, and the practice continues to this day.

Even today, though, there are doctors who tell patients “Medicare will pay for it” because they do not know that the face coverage Medicare provides has nothing to do with what they will pay.

Example:
I have had Medicare A for years, and it has yet to pay a single dime toward my health care expenses. This because my wife works and we have coverage, and Medicare is secondary payer. BUT, unlike other secondary insurers, Medicare does NOT pick up what the primary deducts (deductibles, % after that). A neat trick which left $2,000 not covered year before last.

Ask any long term care provider about the “lifetime 100 days” in Medicare, and how many actually receive it when they need it.

Ask any rural hospital why, with a large percentage of Medicare patients, they are on the brink of closing because they cannot make it with the DRG payments they receive from Medicare.

Ask any senior who has to fork out hundreds of dollars a month for coverage that “supplements” Medicare.

Then tell me “Medicare works.” And then reassure me that Big Brother will use “my interests” instead of profit.

Let’s not assume all government programs are like that. My son is a beneficiary of a government medical program (supplementary medical assistance) and it’s been a positive experience. It’s run fairly efficiently, only took about 30 days to get fully enrolled, and the process to obtain the benefit is simple – it’s just an insurance card. We would have gone bankrupt 5 years ago if it didn’t exist.

And just to add to what was said earlier, access to health care is a human right. “Health care” isn’t a product, or property; it’s the right to be alive — and it’s the first of our freedoms – LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Spend some time around people who are dying because they can’t afford readily-available medicine, and you realize quickly that it’s a basic human right.

itâ€™s the right to be alive â€” and itâ€™s the first of our freedoms – LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I’ve always taken that to mean that no person or government can arbitrarily decide whether you live of die. Other than that, we have the same right to life as a zebra, who must take responsibility for avoiding the lion.

Hey, conservatives, the House just authorized another $2 billion for that massive cash-for-clunkers porkulus failure that has no current stimulus value at all, none! In fact, it reduces current auto demand, right, Pollwatching Cash?

What is the real effect of “government” in our current health care system?

Health Care Realities

By PAUL KRUGMAN

At a recent town hall meeting, a man stood up and told Representative Bob Inglis to â€œkeep your government hands off my Medicare.â€ The congressman, a Republican from South Carolina, tried to explain that Medicare is already a government program â€” but the voter, Mr. Inglis said, â€œwasnâ€™t having any of it.â€

Itâ€™s a funny story â€” but it illustrates the extent to which health reform must climb a wall of misinformation. Itâ€™s not just that many Americans donâ€™t understand what President Obama is proposing; many people donâ€™t understand the way American health care works right now. They donâ€™t understand, in particular, that getting the government involved in health care wouldnâ€™t be a radical step: the government is already deeply involved, even in private insurance.

And that government involvement is the only reason our system works at all.

The key thing you need to know about health care is that it depends crucially on insurance. You donâ€™t know when or whether youâ€™ll need treatment â€” but if you do, treatment can be extremely expensive, well beyond what most people can pay out of pocket. Triple coronary bypasses, not routine doctorâ€™s visits, are where the real money is, so insurance is essential.

Yet private markets for health insurance, left to their own devices, work very badly: insurers deny as many claims as possible, and they also try to avoid covering people who are likely to need care. Horror stories are legion: the insurance company that refused to pay for urgently needed cancer surgery because of questions about the patientâ€™s acne treatment; the healthy young woman denied coverage because she briefly saw a psychologist after breaking up with her boyfriend.

And in their efforts to avoid â€œmedical losses,â€ the industry term for paying medical bills, insurers spend much of the money taken in through premiums not on medical treatment, but on â€œunderwritingâ€ â€” screening out people likely to make insurance claims. In the individual insurance market, where people buy insurance directly rather than getting it through their employers, so much money goes into underwriting and other expenses that only around 70 cents of each premium dollar actually goes to care.

Still, most Americans do have health insurance, and are reasonably satisfied with it. How is that possible, when insurance markets work so badly? The answer is government intervention.

Most obviously, the government directly provides insurance via Medicare and other programs. Before Medicare was established, more than 40 percent of elderly Americans lacked any kind of health insurance. Today, Medicare â€” which is, by the way, one of those â€œsingle payerâ€ systems conservatives love to demonize â€” covers everyone 65 and older. And surveys show that Medicare recipients are much more satisfied with their coverage than Americans with private insurance.

Still, most Americans under 65 do have some form of private insurance. The vast majority, however, donâ€™t buy it directly: they get it through their employers. Thereâ€™s a big tax advantage to doing it that way, since employer contributions to health care arenâ€™t considered taxable income. But to get that tax advantage employers have to follow a number of rules; roughly speaking, they canâ€™t discriminate based on pre-existing medical conditions or restrict benefits to highly paid employees.

And itâ€™s thanks to these rules that employment-based insurance more or less works, at least in the sense that horror stories are a lot less common than they are in the individual insurance market.

So hereâ€™s the bottom line: if you currently have decent health insurance, thank the government. Itâ€™s true that if youâ€™re young and healthy, with nothing in your medical history that could possibly have raised red flags with corporate accountants, you might have been able to get insurance without government intervention. But time and chance happen to us all, and the only reason you have a reasonable prospect of still having insurance coverage when you need it is the large role the government already plays.

Which brings us to the current debate over reform.

Right-wing opponents of reform would have you believe that President Obama is a wild-eyed sociali$t, attacking the free market. But unregulated markets donâ€™t work for health care â€” never have, never will. To the extent we have a working health care system at all right now itâ€™s only because the government covers the elderly, while a combination of regulation and tax subsidies makes it possible for many, but not all, nonelderly Americans to get decent private coverage.

Now Mr. Obama basically proposes using additional regulation and subsidies to make decent insurance available to all of us. Thatâ€™s not radical; itâ€™s as American as, well, Medicare.

I doubt it will work with the long term congressman who has no worries about winning his next election.”

Ya, sometimes it’ll work. I tried a doing as you advise a few years back with Group Death…er…Group Health, except I sent it regualr mail(this was in the pre-email days). I did get a reply, detailing company policy and why my claim was denied.
And ya, you may have a congressman who feels secure in his constituancy and won’t give you the time of day. But they do stand for re-election once every 2 years. A letter or email may or may not have an effect. They get enough of ‘em, and it’ll have an effect.
Bottom line, the US health care system is all f’ed up. Fixing it is going to be neither easy nor cheap. If anyone thinks Congress and O will get it right on the fist try, they are delusional. But at least it’s a start. It’s time to start.
John points out some of the flaws in Medicare, and there are more than he outlined inherent in the system. Again, there is plenty of room for improvement. A success story like the VA gives me hope that we can make the needed improvements in government run program to provide the services we need.
But, as dar wrote above, the profit motive and quality health care are fundamentally incompatable. Change is usually not easy, especially with something of this size. Time to deal with it.

Iâ€™ve always taken that to mean that no person or government can arbitrarily decide whether you live of die. Other than that, we have the same right to life as a zebra, who must take responsibility for avoiding the lion.

Well, it’s not quite that simple. You’re talking about preventative care — which is primarily a personal responsibility.

If you’re not covered and you break your leg, it’s unreasonable that the personal cost to you should be bankruptcy if you don’t have coverage. Doesn’t that restrict one’s life with onerous debt?

Bottom line, the US health care system is all fâ€™ed up. Fixing it is going to be neither easy nor cheap. If anyone thinks Congress and O will get it right on the fist try, they are delusional. But at least itâ€™s a start. Itâ€™s time to start.

The “fist try” was what it felt like O was trying to do to me with his original timeframe.

Seriously,
No disagreement that things need repair. I just don’t want to see it f’ed worse than it already is, which was the feeling I had as Obama was rushing for an August signing.

His approval rating from me jumped a few points when he backed off that date. At least the experts, and the non-RW radio hacks skeptics have a chance to weigh in.

Some people choose to get cancer -smokers for instance – but for the most part, cancer chooses to get you. Some health events are preventable, as you note above, vomit. Many, many more are not. You and I shouldn’t have to shoulder the burden of somene’s bad choices. Neither should someone have to shoulder the burden of disease they didn’t bring on themselves by themself.

“…the government is already deeply involved, even in private insurance”.

>Most government involvement is at the state level, not the federal level. If a state gets too outrageous, a company can stop selling there.

“And that government involvement is the only reason our system works at all.”

>Regulating is one thing; taking over the market is quite another. And even if that is the reference, the above statement is questionable to say the least.

“Triple coronary bypasses, not routine doctorâ€™s visits, are where the real money is, so insurance is essential.

>Especially insurance that does not use “best practices” to determine that if you are over 75 you don’t get them.

“… insurers spend much of the money taken in through premiums not on medical treatment, but on â€œunderwritingâ€ â€” screening out people likely to make insurance claims.

>Simple: ban screening. Don’t usurp the industry.

“…so much money goes into underwriting and other expenses that only around 70 cents of each premium dollar actually goes to care.

>I believe that is somewhat inaccurate. And I have never heard of a government program that proclaims it spends less that 30% on bureaucracy. As a matter of fact, those costs are buried in government programs. For all we know, most programs DO use 30% for administration: the bureaucracy is the first cost paid from appropriations.

“How is that possible, when insurance markets work so badly? The answer is government intervention.

>Well, competition probably has some role, don’t you think? If you’re really bad word gets around — with the help of your competitors.

>And if by government intervention you mean regulation — as opposed to taking it over themselves — I agree regulation is needed. Government is good at that.

“Most obviously, the government directly provides insurance via Medicare and other programs.

>If you can call it that. By the time most seniors pay their part B premium and deductibles, their part D premium and deductibles, and the (mandatory if you want to avoid bankruptcy from pure Medicare) “supplemental” private insurance plan(s), they are paying about as much as they would from private insurance companies for a package.

>And don’t forget the many Medicare recipients who participate in the plans (that the pols now want to cut) where Medicare pays a per capita to an insurance company which then provides all that Medicare gives and then some. These people are generally happier with their Medicare than old plan folks.

“Today, Medicare â€” which is, by the way, one of those â€œsingle payerâ€ systems conservatives love to demonize â€” covers everyone 65 and older.”

>If you could call it coverage. It’s a single bed sheet on a king size bed.

“So hereâ€™s the bottom line: if you currently have decent health insurance, thank the government.

>For regulations, yes. But the government has always been better at forcing someone ELSE to do the right thing than doing it themselves.

>And apart from regulations, the government provides nothing but the tax break for all that decent health insurance.

“Right-wing opponents of reform would have you believe that President Obama is … attacking the free market.

>Because “the reality is” he is.

But unregulated markets donâ€™t work for health care â€” never have, never will.

>Regulation, yes. That in no way justifies takeover in the face of the government’s pathetic history in running most programs.

“Now Mr. Obama basically proposes using additional regulation and subsidies to make decent insurance available to all of us.

Iâ€™ve been hearing a lot about the savings that we could currently get from the Medicare program I donâ€™t know where or what but it sounds like a lot.

Do we need a government run healthcare to get those savings? Lets just go after the savings.

Lets pass laws addressing the current conditions thing.

Lets subsidize low income so they can get insurance. Let them pay 25 bucks a month or something.

I like my healthcare. I pay a lot and it has gone up. I donâ€™t like that, but I like the care I get. My understanding is most people like the insurance and care they have ( even if MSNBC ( FOX ) tells me the opposite )

There are so many things we could do to address the problems we have. Lets do that first and see if we can correct the current problems ( addressed above ).

Like I said before tax me a little. If I know that tax is going to go to help people who through no fault of their own can’t afford care then I’m fine with it.

Make insurance companies create a sub division that works only with low income or the non insured.

If some guy can afford but is working the system flag him and deny care if he doesn’t get insurance.

Bottom line, the US health care system is all fâ€™ed up. Fixing it is going to be neither easy nor cheap. If anyone thinks Congress and O will get it right on the fist try, they are delusional. But at least itâ€™s a start. Itâ€™s time to start.
Or
Ask any rural hospital why, with a large percentage of Medicare patients, they are on the brink of closing because they cannot make it with the DRG payments they receive from Medicare

I like the Monty and John discussion wih good points by both.
I would just add that these will always be remembered as the gravy days of american healthcare:
Yes, it is very expensive.
Yes, we way overutilize our system–ie
for many Medicare patients, their visit is more like a social outing, or the obese greatly strain it, motorcycles, etc
Yet, but
Life expectancies almost doubled in the last century despite the obesity and sedentary issues.
Technology is at overcapacity, esp MR’s, CT’s and the like. Want an MRI, the wait time right now in our metro is: today, even Sat and evenings!
With the enormous land size of this country, healthcare is usually handy and only miles away, as our doctors still take “gratis call” in their small towns where they will come in at 2am if needed, and only get paid for their actually services, not for carrying a beeper for 12 hrs.

And even now, the “crisis” moniker is ,of course, false as the 80% with insurance have it pretty good as seen with the recent uproar.
The uninsured 20% still are welcome in both teaching hospital/clinic systems on the cheap, and certain ER’s cant turn away patients, like Mercy, etc

And for big bills, bankruptcy is always available for those tragic situations, although many providers will settle wiht patients for big discounts and a payment schedule.

Still, we would be well advised to have:
1. our citizens take better care of themselves,
2. Have our system eliminate this goofy capitation system, where nobody knows what anything costs upfront, and cash payors are the only ones paying 100% of their bill
3. Try reign in doctors overordering tests to the extreme, ie “reign” in the trial bar

There is 800 bil/year to saved out there, but it is unlikely to happen
due to the fear of the unknown, but it is also unlikely to stay in these gravy times, where an injured middle school athlete can and does have an MRI the next day, or hospitals can have a patient in a cath lab within 60 minutes for an MI.

I mean look at the BQ recent discussions, where people cant even admit that defensive medicine is a major cost driver,,,,,,,????
and now our “CARS” govt is getting involved =
costs will continue to soar and soar.

Hey DimJim, whereâ€™s your trashing of the â€œclownishâ€ Rasmussen because other pollsters criticize his new presidential approval index?

Dora, you must have me confused with some other poster as I dont do poll posts, ie their “science” rates right up their with climatologist “science.”
ie it is an art, not science.
Polls bore me, I prefer election days.
You bore me, too

I like the idea, but what an effen mess—- for the nuts and bolts of administering the program.
These are your guys, what do you think?
Again, the Repubs votes are irrelevant, but you guys love to seem to deflect the “whose in charge,” issue.
I understand why!

“where people cant even admit that defensive medicine is a major cost driver,,,,,,,????”

That’s because we don’t ignore all the data that says it is not a “major cost driver”.

This is a place where open-minded critical thinkers of all political persuasions encounter information and arguments that both support and challenge their preconceptions. The goal is not to eliminate differences but to narrow and clarify them. We begin with a bedrock agreement that the search for insight and clarity is important, serious - and fun.

We ask commenters to be civil and substantive and, if possible, good humored. We reserve the right to delete comments that disregard this request.